Talk:Ada Lovelace/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Not the first programmer

There is new research that settles the debate regarding who was the first programmer. https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/technology/visionaries/ada-lovelace-original-and-visionary-but-no-programmer/ I'm going to rewrite the part of the article that deals with claiming she is the first programmer but I'm open to a discussion about it, as I'm doing this in good faith. Basically, from Swade's work: Babbage wrote 24 programs for his Analytical Engine 6-7 years before Lovelace wrote anything for it. See the link. IndyCar1020 (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Accepted this was good faith, but it's a major change. Significant upending of a central part of Lovelace's fame will require stronger evidence than the preview described, and consensus among interested parties. Conan The Librarian (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Result will have to be accepted by mainstream sources before being included here. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC).

Why does this require stronger evidence? This is new evidence that shows 24 programs were written years before Lovelace's work. Just because many people traditionally believed this was the first programmer doesn't make it so, that would be just a variant of ad populum. IndyCar1020 (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability not truth, and the source proffered is a dead-link blog. Wait until the scholars have assessed this claim. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC).

The person claiming it is Doron Swade, not just "some blog" (and the link works fine, btw). He is a leading authority on Babbage's life and works (if not THE leading authority), and presented this in the University of Oxford during a symposium for Babbage's 200th birthday.

It is also easily verifiable that Babbage wrote several programs: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9310670 .

And this began in 1836, 4 years before he presented his works in Italy and Menabrea took the notes he gave to Lovelace to translate, and 6 years before she wrote her own programs.

Even the original notes that Menabrea took in Turin in 1840 (https://www.fourmilab.ch/babbage/sketch.html) state that Babbage brought punched cards that represented variables and operations (some of which were FOR, WHILE and IF, as explained here ), and could be used in a sequence of functions that are actually what we would call algorithms to form what he calls "laws", but are what we call programs.

And even what Menabrea writes there in the notes translated by Lovelace are programs, in the very same notation of columns she then uses in the appendixes.

The amount of evidence of programs for Babbage's machine is abundant and published in very reputable sources like IEEE's journal and by reputed scholars from univeristies like Freie Universität Berlin and Oxford. I think that is verifiable enough and assesed enough by scholars. 89.143.36.92 (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Since no one refutes this, and the links check out, I'm going to remove this inaccurate statement that Lovelace is the "first programmer". Enough is enough. IndyCar1020 (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

This requires quite a bit of rewriting. Does this also remove her claim to be the first to recognize computability beyond mere calculation? IndyCar1020 (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems like it is only the bit about being the first to write these programs. I've edited now. To everyone that feels like reverting this: You cannot revert this just because you don't like it. Given the new research, there is no room for a subjective view any longer on preferring to believe one "version" over the other. IndyCar1020 (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@IndyCar1020: That's not how it works; the onus is on you to make sure what you added is referenced appropriately. Unless you can provide reliable secondary sources from biographies or peer-reviewed journals showing new scholarly consensus on her standing, your additions will not be kept. The current consensus is that she is one of the first computer programmers, as referenced by any reputable source. Wretchskull (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I did provide a reliable, peer reviewed source. There is no such consensus, you have no idea what you're talking about, this is not your field. IndyCar1020 (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I find it quite amusing that you believe that you are in a position to determine what the consensus is, when your own field appears to be "I'm interested in music, medicine, biology, and philosophy". Please, just stop it. There has been no peer reviewed publications to challenge the findings of Swade et al for close to ten years now. How much is enough for you? Is it ever enough, or will you just defend what you believe is the correct political view? IndyCar1020 (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I still don't see a reply from you here, Wretchskull.

I provided a peer-reviewed source, and since then, another one.

You claim "the consensus" is, yet, you don't provide any sources yourself for this claim.

Instead of providing a reply to this, I don't see how getting me banned was productive. Please be kind and respectful when moving forward. IndyCar1020 (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

What if you guys just put "may" be the first (or "has been called by..." and add text about under what criteria she would/what caveats there are? Chamaemelum (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Multiple other editor have reverted you for reasons having nothing to do with political beliefs but everything to do with how Wikipedia works. To begin your journey to consensus, literally quote and specifically cite for us the WP:RS that tells us that

Her title as the world's first programmer has remained controversial for a long time, but the latest research which has remained unchallenged since 2015 suggests that the controversy is settled with Lovelace not being the first programmer.

... those words being part of what you've been trying to insert in the article. EEng 23:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC) P.S. re your edit summary here [1]: Since I not only have some understanding of the history of computing but actually teach the subject at a small but well respected liberal arts college, I take it you won't be trying that line out on me.

I thought I already did provide sources for this. If you agree with what I wrote, if your only problem is my exact phrasing of the quoted statement, then I suggest you rephrase my contribution instead of just outright removing it.

Considering that this is your field, I would imagine you're already familiar with this, but, here you go. https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/charles-babbage-and-ada-lovelace-two-visions-computing

Look at around 26:20.

Look at that, 1837, indeed. My, my. Isn't that a little bit before Ada's contributions?

However, if you don't agree with what I wrote:

Instead of just explaining to me how "multiple other editors" (who we both can agree, probably know next to nothing about actual computer history) have reverted my claims, why don't you instead challenge my claim with real literature instead of just your own words and credentials?

Where is your peer-reviewed paper, that suggests that both the findings presented at the symposium at Oxford and the IEEE paper I cited, are wrong?

And forgive me, this isn't even anecdotal, but I just can't help but add: Curious, isn't it, that the very person that designed the computer from scratch, wouldn't also write even a single program for it? Of course, nooooo, that must be Lovelace. Would you, if you made your own computer from scratch (and maybe you did), not also want to write even the most simple program for it?

Ridiculous.

If anything, just the outrageous statement that the very person that builds their own computer from scratch also doesn't write the first program for it, should require extraordinary proof. Not the other way around! IndyCar1020 (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm...

• Babbage never built his computer so I'm not sure your reasoning applies.
• your own ... credentials – I trotted out my credentials only to put in its place your assertion to another editor that You have no understanding of the history of computing, and to remind you that you never know who you might be talking to. I can't imagine how, after that, you could imagine I'm going to agree that our fellow editors probably know next to nothing about actual computer history.
• If you agree with what I wrote – Whether I agree with what you wrote is irrelevant; what matters is whether what you wrote agrees with reliable sources.
• Where is your peer-reviewed paper, that suggests that both the findings presented at the symposium at Oxford and the IEEE paper I cited, are wrong? – In this thread you've only cited the symposium, so I'll restrict my comments to that: recorded comments at a symposium aren't peer-reviewed, so I don't know why any rebuttal would need to be.
• Speaking of the symposium... I picked up at 26:20 as you suggested but I'm afraid that, being a bear of very little brain, I'm still confused and will need more help finding support for your proposed text:
  • Her title as the world's first programmer [has/had] remained controversial for a long time – At what point in the podcast is this (or an equivalent) statement made?
  • the latest research ... suggests that the controversy is settled ... with Lovelace not being the first programmer – At what point in the podcast is this (or an equivalent) statement made?
  • the latest research ... has remained unchallenged since 2015 – At what point in the podcast is this (or an equivalent) statement made?

Assuming you can answer the three queries above above, then there's still the following problem. You make much of the fact that (you say) there's been no dissent from Swade's views; but there's been no uptake of them either AFAICS, and in fact no seems to have taken notice of them either way (again:AFAICS). I might be inclined, provisionally, to accept Swade's symposium comments as a reliable source for his minority opinion, meriting a one-sentence mention of that, qua dissenting opinion from the current scholarly consensus. But it's all moot until you show us where in the source there's support for your text. EEng 08:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever said that a symposium is peer-reviewed. It nevertheless constitutes a body of work and is a type of research. Anyone is welcome to write a paper that takes material from said presentation and refutes it. Yet, there has been no such contribution to the field, since 2015. I wonder why.

Instead of being refuted, there have been papers written that confirm Swade's findings, you just chose to ignore one of them because I didn't include it again here. I find this a bit curious.

This one:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9310670

Furthermore, this requirement seems arbitrary. Considering what WP:RS has to say about the importance of the latest research:

WP:RS:

"Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. In particular, newer sources are generally preferred in medicine."

This suggests to me, the old research about Lovelace being the first programmer becomes superseded by the latest research. If my interpretation on this is wrong, then please do explain why or change WP:RS.

I don't think I need to cite the claim that 1837 (or 1836 for that matter) comes before 1842, I understand that the threshold for when WP:OR gets triggered is low. However, stating that one number is bigger than another (as this is what allows us to use WP:RS to find research superseding other research without conducting OR!), I would imagine is not OR.

Am I understanding you correctly, that:

• You agree that Babbage wrote at least one computer program as early as 1836, certainly by 1837.
• You agree that Lovelace wrote at least one computer program in 1842.

You don't agree, that I have provided a peer-reviewed source, that explains that 1836 comes before 1842?

One of the big problems we're having here, is that you appear to be intentionally provoking. Instead of explaining to me, who is relatively new to Wikipedia and its internal myriad of rules, you don't actually point out what you want, and why.

Please explain to me:

Do you honestly need a source that explains why 1836 is a year earlier in history than 1842? Or do you simply disagree that the first program was written in 1836? If so, I would suggest that this isn't something you can have an opinion of. You need more than that. You need a paper that explains that the latest research is actually wrong, because there is such a body (albeit perhaps small) of research now that suggests exactly that.

Swade has actually said in an interview to OpenMind the following, if it matters at all to you:

“I confirm that the manuscript evidence clearly shows that Babbage wrote ‘programs’ for his Analytical Engine in 1836-7 i.e. 6-7 years before the publication of Lovelace’s article in 1843. There are about 24 of such ‘programs’ and they have the identical features of the Lovelace’s famous ‘program’,” adds Swade. The historian says that the new tests are “unarguable” and that they “do not support, indeed they contradict the claim that Lovelace was the ‘first programmer’.”

As for my reasoning at the end (which I already pointed out holds no actual merit, so you don't need to explain this is WP:RS) absolutely still applies. The exercise of designing such a machine would put the person doing it in a far superior position to anyone else for designing a program for the same machine. Anyone else would need to learn how the machine is supposed to work, then design the program. On the other hand, Babbage already possesses this knowledge and simply has to make the most trivial program imaginable and would by extension become the world's first programmer.

The very fact that no one else sees the insanity of this is beyond me. Is it possible Lovelace was still the first programmer? Yes. Is it likely? No. In fact, it is so extremely unlikely that again, any controversy regarding this claim should by default go to the person that designed the computer.

Babbage: "I've spent years designing a general computer, but I've yet to even write down a single program. Somehow, I managed to design it, without ever thinking about the fact that it will run programs! I didn't even write down a set of execution states, or a simple operation, such as how one would assign a value to a location in memory."

Lovelace: "Oh why thank you, I'll get right on that."

You don't have to tell me this is WP:OR, we're not in disagreement about that. IndyCar1020 (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@IndyCar1020: It doesn't matter what "new findnings" there are as long as they're isolated and not part of scholarly consensus, even if the consensus is "wrong". Again read WP:VNT - if there are no biographers and academic sources which unanimously agree that she isn't the first programmer, the edit will not be kept. Please top edit warring. Wretchskull (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Yet, you don't require sources that unanimously agree that she is the first programmer?

No I will not stop. Ban me. IndyCar1020 (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Please read section "Controversy over contribution" and my research: https://pettersson-fanpage.de/Lovelace/Lovelace.html This is not "new finding".

Article says some authors claim that she is the "first computer programmer". Don't know, if these publications are peer-reviewed. Grimes2 (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The two papers I've included are maybe not new findings, but they are new papers. That makes them the latest research and hence my statement is sound as-is.

The link you provided appears to mostly support that she is not the first programmer? I will read it more thoroughly. IndyCar1020 (talk) 10:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I've added one peer-reviewed source, but I don't have access to full article. Grimes2 (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

What you both are doing continues to be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, with a large dollop of WP:RGW. There's already a Controversy section acknowledging the contrary characterizations; we're not going to stick something in the lead about how things are "settled" or "unchallenged", because they're not. David Eppstein, perhaps you could have a talk with IndyCar1020 about his expressed desire to be banned. EEng 15:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Too late for IndyCar1020, Bbb23 already blocked them for their problematic behavior here. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

And what exactly would the problematic behavior be? That I said "ban me"? And then got banned?

Why would I not revert changes that are being made seconds after I publish peer-reviewed papers? I don't get any answers as to why they are being removed, instead I'm just told that I'm edit warring. If I am edit warring, then so are they, yet, only I got punished.

I try to have a productive discussion and I've yet to see a reasonable answer as to what the problem is with writing "the latest research suggests" and providing three sources for this.

I consider it vandalism to just remove (while refusing to engage in meaningful discussion) contributions. It goes against the intention of Wikipedia. IndyCar1020 (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

How is providing the latest research in the form of two scientific papers (and one third article summarizing findings at a symposium) WP:OR and WP:SYNTH?

All I wrote was that the "the latest research suggests".

I find it curious you want to get me banned for this. Can you please explain why, so we can move on and have a productive discussion?

I apologize if I offended you. IndyCar1020 (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Banned for daring to write the following about Ada Lovelace

Already discussed above: #Not the first programmer—Alalch E. 19:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I've been banned for daring to write the following about Ada Lovelace. Is there anything incorrect about the statement? Say, if there was other, also recent research which contradicted the "latest research suggests" statement, then that might be a valid argument. However, simply not liking it and removing it arbitrarily (and getting me banned), seems to be worse than just vandalism. This is what I wrote: Older research has suggested Lovelace was the first computer programmer; however, the latest research suggests this is not the case and that Charles Babbage was the first programmer. IndyCar1020 (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC) References

Ada Gordon or Ada Byron as birth name.

Jord656 feels her birth name should be given as Ada Gordon rather than Ada Byron and gives what I would call a non-authoritative non-RS (findingada.com) as a reference. Opinions? —DIYeditor (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

https://www.biography.com/scholars-educators/ada-lovelace

https://blogs.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/adalovelace/about-ada-lovelace/

https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/history/pioneers/augusta-ada-lovelace-countess-lady.php

https://findingada.com/about/who-was-ada/ Jord656 (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Jord656 Uh yeah, of the only vaguely reliable sources you provide, https://blogs.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/adalovelace/about-ada-lovelace/ says Augusta Ada King, Countess of Lovelace was born Augusta Ada Byron and https://www.biography.com/scholars-educators/ada-lovelace says Ada Lovelace, born as Augusta Ada Byron. I think we're done here. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2023

Change "Charles Babbage" to be linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage Lucian Chauvin (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

already linked in the very first sentence of the article Cannolis (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

NO COMPUTER PROGRAMMER

"Lovelace's notes are important in the early history of computers, especially since the seventh one contained what many consider to be the first computer program—that is, an algorithm designed to be carried out by a machine." Historically false. No one claims that except ideologically driven people with no historical background whatsoever. 2003:A:A0B:4100:D1F2:134B:6CC2:D227 (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

That's nice. Do you have some citations to support that? —DIYeditor (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2023

change "Her mother remained bitter and promoted Ada's interest in mathematics and logic in an effort to prevent her from developing her father's perceived insanity." to "Her mother was anxious about her upbringing and promoted Ada's interest in mathematics and logic in an effort to prevent her from developing her father's perceived insanity."

Feels unfair to declare Lady Byron as bitter here, a little more compassion for her life's situation feels more appropriate. ErnestCragwell (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done as requested. (I wouldn't blame her if she were bitter.) Maproom (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2023

Change "Most modern computer scientists argue that this view is outdated and that computer software can develop in ways that cannot necessarily be anticipated by programmers.[66]"

To "Some modern Digital Media historians argue that this view is outdated and that computer software can develop in ways that cannot necessarily be anticipated by programmers.[66]"

First, citation [66] is far from the prevailing opinion in the AI community. Indeed, most AI scientists oppose the view that software could ever truly originate anything. If you’re interested in this topic, and in the fallacy of the Turing Test as it is being applied by many pop-scientists, read the relevant chapters in Luciano Floridi’s fourth revolution. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-fourth-revolution-9780199606726?cc=gb&lang=en&

Second, citation [66] is not authored by computer scientists, rather by members of the Digital Media departaments. 51.19.70.7 (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Bad source in lead

This source has been marked as for months now, and was originally marked so by EEng. I agree with this, because it's a citation to an obscure website with no clear editorial policy or reason for reliability, and think that the lack of a better source in the months since is evidence that the claim should be removed.

So I did so, and Xxanthippe re-added it, asking why I think it's a bad source. I've explained above, and am hoping EEng also explains why they added the tag in the first place. Loki (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

"BBVA OpenMind" is a vanity site run by a bank, with no apparent editorial oversight whatsoever. It's useless as an article source.

I'm really busy IRL right now, so I'm going to demur on getting into the content details, but I will offer that the article should almost certainly say something like that Ada has long been called the first programmer etc. mumble, but that there's beginning to be dissent from that etc. mumble, or maybe even something somewhat stronger. But gotta have real scholarly sources for that, not that BBVA tripe. EEng 09:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Based on the info later on, I think we should say the most true thing we can say, which is that she is the first author of a published computer program (or at least, given the usual caveats about the analytical engine never actually being built and her describing an algorithm rather than the exact punch cards necessary to make it do anything), but Babbage's notes contain some earlier simple programs for the analytical engine that were never published. Loki (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Babbage wrote in his autobiography, that he is the author of the Bernoulli numbers "program". But maybe, he is a liar. Grimes2 (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that information? Loki (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

"I then suggested that she add some notes to Menabrea's memoir, an idea which was immediately adopted. We discussed together the various illustrations that might be introduced; I suggested several but the selection was entirely her own. So also was the algebraic working out of the different problems, except, indeed, that relating to the numbers of Bernoulli, which I had offered to do to save Lady Lovelace the trouble. This she sent back to me for an amendment, having detected a grave mistake which I had made in the process."

Charles Babbage (1864). Passages from the Life of a Philosopher, p. 136, ISBN: 0813520665.

Unfortunately this is a primary source, so we can't use it. Grimes2 (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nevermind, I've found it:

Some time after the appearance of his memoir on the subject in the “Bibliothèque Universelle de Genève,” the late Countess of Lovelace informed me that she had translated the memoir of Menabrea. I asked why she had not herself written an original paper on a subject with which she was so intimately acquainted? To this Lady Lovelace replied that the thought had not occurred to her. I then suggested that she should add some notes to Menabrea’s memoir; an idea which was immediately adopted.

We discussed together the various illustrations that might be introduced: I suggested several, but the selection was entirely her own. So also was the algebraic working out of the different problems, except, indeed, that relating to the numbers of Bernouilli, which I had offered to do to save Lady Lovelace the trouble. This she sent back to me for an amendment, having detected a grave mistake which I had made in the process.

At least to me, this doesn't really change the fact that Lovelace is the author (or at minimum, the co-author) of the Bernoulli numbers program for two reasons. Number one is that Babbage says that what was going on here was the algebraic working out and not the actual computer algorithm itself: there was only one actual algorithm in Lovelace's notes but many instances of algebra. Number two is that Babbage also says that Lovelace corrected a major error in whatever he had done for her, so the final version published is definitely her work. Loki (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, she detected a "bug" in Babbage's "program". That doesn't make her the author/creator/developer of the "program". She only published his "program". Grimes2 (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

As previously stated, it's unclear that it's his program, only that it's his algebra. Loki (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

At that time "program" didn't exist. They used the words data and formulae. Please look at the Bernouilli diagram. Grimes2 (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand they would not have used the word "program", but you can clearly see in her notes that the Bernoulli diagram is not the same as the (many) algebraic expressions throughout the paper, and is intended very specifically to be an algorithm to be run on the analytical engine rather than just algebra like all the other algebraic expressions.

Babbage doesn't say anything about helping her with the diagram/operations (the terms she uses in the paper for the things in Note G that modern readers would equate to an algorithm or program). He only says he helped her with the algebra, and as there's plenty of algebra in the paper (indeed, a significant portion of Note G is an algebraic explanation of the Bernoulli diagram) this is not significant evidence that he helped her with that diagram, or with the detailed explanation of the operations at the end of Note G. Loki (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The whole paper: https://www.fourmilab.ch/babbage/sketch.html I can't see the principle difference between the various diagrams. In the Bernouilli diagram the data are 1, 2, n, B1, B3, B5 and the formulae (plural) are 2n-1, 2n+1. Please read also the correspondence from Lovelace to Babbage "Give me the necessary data & formulae" (Babbage to Lovelace is not preserved). I believe the principle problem is, that the old math terminology by Babbage and Lovelace is incompatible with modern computer terminology. Grimes2 (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I already linked the whole paper. And I still disagree. Loki (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Charles Babbage references aren't links

Charles Babbage references in the page aren't links to Charles Babbage's Page? Me.brook.smith (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Me.brook.smith, where are you seeing a problem? Babbage is wikilinked in the opening sentence and it goes to Charles Babbage. If you mean that later mentions of him aren't linked to his article, that's because Wikipedia style is to link only the first instance of a word/name, not to link every instance. Schazjmd (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Thanks, Yeah, it was the other references, I guess I was confused as there are other references like Lord Byron which do have multiple links. Me.brook.smith (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Ada Lovelace building, University of Bristol

The building of the school of Engineering Mathematics at the University of Bristol was named after Ada Lovelace. Source: https://engineering.blogs.bristol.ac.uk/ada-lovelace-building-new-home-engineering-maths/ 81.170.12.48 (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I've put that in the article. Doric Loon (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of unverifiable memorial plaque info

I could not find a reliable source for this statement: "A memorial plaque, written in Latin, to her and her father is in the chapel attached to Horsley Towers." and I question its importance. If I could cite it, I would leave it in place, but since I cannot, I will delete this sentence on or after April 10, 2024 unless I see objections in this discussion. Jlahorn (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I found a photograph of what appears to be the plaque described, but can't find it in sourceable text so apparently it isn't considered significant enough to mention. Schazjmd (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Schazjmd seems to have provided a source, but as for the importance, it's relevant to her biography and death. The biography section should be about her life and death, whether it is relevant to her contributions to computing or mathematics or not. Otherwise might as well remove the entire biography since it's not relevant to her works. Tricameral (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The photograph isn't a reliable source. It's simply the only evidence I could find that the plaque even exists. Schazjmd (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I contend that this specific sentence is not about her life and death, or any of her contributions. It's about a plaque...

Here are our options:

The photograph isn't a reliable source, so we can leave the sentence there unreferenced, and hope info about it appears in a reliable source some day, and that some other Wikipedian in the future finds it, comes back and adds the citations, or we can remove it. I don't think it's providing much value, if any, so I would prefer to remove it, but I also don't care THAT much. There are literally hundreds of thousands of other uncited claims on Wikipedia for me to help clean up. Jlahorn (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlahorn (talk • contribs) 12:45 10 April 2024 (UTC)